Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of war!


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of war! Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/5/2008 3:31:07 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Firm, I'm not playing your game. I saw through it when you trotted those questions out the first time.

You'll try and twist any statement made about the burmese leadership into an equivalence to preoccupation Iraq and start crying hypocrite. I told you the first time you that I was falling into your not so clever trap and I meant it.

Let me just remind you that you don't get to claim GWB did the right thing because he inadveertantly stopped mass killings. By any reasonable standard GWB is directly responsible for a far greater rate of death and displacement in Iraq than Saddam ever was. So by the standard you no doubt think will allow you to score some points with those who you disagree with GWB should be dragged in front of the War Crimes court and locked up forever.

I'm trying really hard to be nice to you but this is getting ridiculous and your continued assumptions that I'm so stupid as to fall for your little trick is insulting.


Contrary to your belief, I'm not trying to "catch you in a trap".  You've already "fallen" into my trap, when you admitted that invading Burma would be justified in your eyes.

I have other rhetorical reasons for asking my two questions.

Also, interestingly enough, some of the posters who wish to make a distinction between the US invasion of Iraq, and their support of a possible invasion of Burma do not give their reasons for the support of a "humanitarian" invasion, but instead attack the reasons for the Iraq invasion.

It's a position that inadvertently acknowledges that there are indeed "sufficient reasons" for meddling in the internal affairs of another nation, as long as it is for reasons they support.  It's just that they don't support the reasons for the invasion of Iraq.

However, "any penetration, however slight, is sufficient for conviction".

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/5/2008 4:05:48 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

FR

.......there are any number of positions beyond merely anti-war or pro-war. Consistency would be nice. If invading Iraq was the right thing to do, then so is invading Burma and Zimbabwe. If it was wrong then so is invading Burma and Zimbabwe. If we say that our motives for invading Iraq were essentially humantiarian then it is clearly hypocritical to not invade other, equally repressive regimes. Invading Iraq, but not invading Burma and Zimbabwe begs the question why not........the easy answer is oil.....and thats the one thing that the Bush administration has consistently denied. Thus the perception that the republican administration is hypocritical is born.


Excellent post, philosophy.

You are reasonable and consistent in your logic, for the most part. You bring the discussion to it's next stage.

To make it plain, my position is not that any violation of sovereignty is wrong  My belief is that you can't claim it is wrong to violate sovereignty in the case of Iraq, and but then claim that it isn't wrong to violate sovereignty in Burma.

The interesting point you bring up is when is it ok to violate the sovereignty of a nation?  And if you do it in one case, for a set of reasons, then isn't it hypocritical not do it in all cases that are similar?

If "humanitarian invasions" are acceptable in Burma, then why not in Zimbabwe (or better yet, the Sudan)?

There are several reasons generally accepted to interfere in another nations sovereignty, but does it mean that when you don't, you are being inconsistent?

The short answer is "no".  One nation (or group of nations) will only interfere when it is also in their "national interest" to do so.  Defining that "national interest" is not always an easy task, nor one that everyone (in a democracy or republic) may agree on.

"Oil" as a shorthand explanation panders to one point of view, but is simplistic and derogatory, meant to cast the motive in the starkest and most negative way, in terms that  common culture will condemn.

But, at least I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that sovereignty isn't absolute.  We can then discuss the times and conditions in which it is appropriate.  We may never agree, but at least it moves the philosophical discussion forward. 

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/5/2008 5:53:17 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

I do support airlifting aid to the Burmese in spite of the Burmese government but that falls far short of active regime change.

You sure about that?

Once you open that Pandora's box and overrule the choices of a soveriegn nation, where do you stop?  Can you stop?

How does a few helos unloading relief supplies or some cargo parachute drops ever escalate to regime change?

1. the government that told you not to do it decides to protect their airspace by shooting down your aid planes.

2.  you respond with force because that's what your national soveriengty (and credibility on the world stage) requires.

3. protecting the relief workers from the shooting war now under way requires troops on the ground, leading to an invasion.

4. and so on........

Choice begets consequence.  Action begets reaction.

< Message edited by celticlord2112 -- 6/5/2008 6:05:20 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/5/2008 6:23:59 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

I do support airlifting aid to the Burmese in spite of the Burmese government but that falls far short of active regime change.

You sure about that?

Once you open that Pandora's box and overrule the choices of a soveriegn nation, where do you stop?  Can you stop?

How does a few helos unloading relief supplies or some cargo parachute drops ever escalate to regime change?

1. the government that told you not to do it decides to protect their airspace by shooting down your aid planes.

2.  you respond with force because that's what your national soveriengty (and credibility on the world stage) requires.

3. protecting the relief workers from the shooting war now under way requires troops on the ground, leading to an invasion.

4. and so on........

Choice begets consequence.  Action begets reaction.

You need to look into Burma's military capabilities. Your point 1 isn't likely.

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/5/2008 6:38:07 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

I do support airlifting aid to the Burmese in spite of the Burmese government but that falls far short of active regime change.


How does a few helos unloading relief supplies or some cargo parachute drops ever escalate to regime change?

1. the government that told you not to do it decides to protect their airspace by shooting down your aid planes.

You need to look into Burma's military capabilities. Your point 1 isn't likely.


You are quibbling.

Firm


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/5/2008 7:23:20 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		No Firm I'm not. I'm being a realist. The Burmese government is unable to prevent the sort of aid deliveries I described but is forbidding them for some reason. The options seemed to be keep pressuring them while people suffered and died or ignore them and deliver aid. Since I'm no fan of people suffering involuntarily I'm for getting them some aid despite their government.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/5/2008 7:33:36 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

You need to look into Burma's military capabilities. Your point 1 isn't likely.

The Myanmar Airforce has around 40 Chengdu F-7s, approximately 12 MiG-29s, 16 Shenyang J-6s, and 48 Nanchang A-5s.  Additionally, they have R550 Magic air-to-air missles from France.  Any one of these aircraft is capable of bringing down a cargo plane or helicopter.

A single US carrier has more airpower than this on its hangar deck, but to suggest that Burma is incapable of shooting down aircraft that violate its sovereign airspace is ludicrous.

Would the Burmese government take such a drastic step?  I do not know.  I do know that once the shooting starts it can be hard to stop.




_____________________________



(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/5/2008 7:35:19 AM   
MstrVik


Posts: 122
Joined: 3/31/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
It's a position that inadvertently acknowledges that there are indeed "sufficient reasons" for meddling in the internal affairs of another nation, as long as it is for reasons they support.  It's just that they don't support the reasons for the invasion of Iraq.


I think you will easily find a lot of support for the point of view that any action of war should be firmly based on fact, not rhetoric.-- And, may I add, only as a last resort.

This is not what the so-called 'Bush doctrine' is about however.

I'd also be curious to see how many of the US troops would be willing to accept your rhetoric and proceed to rub noses with the Chinese on their border to Burma. - I'd say that would happen only as a last resort, and the decision would hardly be made unilaterally.

_____________________________

~ sometimes a spanking is just a spanking...

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/5/2008 7:51:47 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

No Firm I'm not. I'm being a realist. The Burmese government is unable to prevent the sort of aid deliveries I described but is forbidding them for some reason. The options seemed to be keep pressuring them while people suffered and died or ignore them and deliver aid. Since I'm no fan of people suffering involuntarily I'm for getting them some aid despite their government.



They're incapable of hurting our forces?
A couple of thousand "insurgants" in Iraq have got 160,000 of our Troops pinned down and busy.
*Guerilla war* is how our forefathers beat England!
I vote that we don't invade anymore countries but that we also not help anymore countries too.
The U.S. is not the world's police, fire, or rescue service!
Let China do it.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/5/2008 8:46:59 AM   
Aubre


Posts: 478
Joined: 12/9/2004
Status: offline 		I don't think we should use our troops to invade anyone until we have set up the VA with the capablilty to care for the results of war. I cannot fathom sending someone in harm's way and then when they get back to this country they aren't treated with the respect and the mental and physical care they deserve. If someone is going to put their life on the line for us we have a solemn duty to be ready to deal with whatever issues they may bring back home with them, and for those that don't make it back home, we need to take care of their families. I was amazed that this article was in Time.

Will there now be acceptable wars, from the folks who said war wasn't acceptable? I'm confused.

< Message edited by Aubre -- 6/5/2008 8:49:49 AM >

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/5/2008 9:00:49 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aubre

I don't think we should use our troops to invade anyone until we have set up the VA with the capablilty to care for the results of war. I cannot fathom sending someone in harm's way and then when they get back to this country they aren't treated with the respect and the mental and physical care they deserve. If someone is going to put their life on the line for us we have a solemn duty to be ready to deal with whatever issues they may bring back home with them, and for those that don't make it back home, we need to take care of their families. I was amazed that this article was in Time.

Will there now be acceptable wars, from the folks who said war wasn't acceptable? I'm confused.


Hear! Hear!

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Aubre)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/5/2008 9:17:03 AM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline 		......thanks for the considered response FK. i absolutely agree that a nations sovereignity is not absolute. For myself (and i'd like to stress that this is not meant as an objective statement) i would suggest that we need, as a planet, to find a set of rules that govern our thinking on these matters. A code of ethics, if you will. Such a code would be independent of national interest, just as an enlightened nations laws are independent of personal interest. Just as it is not legal to rob a shop because one is hungry it ought not to be legal to invade a country for mere national interest.
Humanitarian war (war for an ideal, essentially) is an odd concept, but one that i actually have some sympathy with.
i've never been a military person, although i have nothing but respect for those who choose to risk their lives in such a career. Despite that, it seems to me that a member of the military would surely prefer to risk their lives for something meaningful, something good, rather than something narrow and of debatable ethics. Just as there is an unwritten contract between larger society and the military along the lines of 'you risk your life, we promise to look after you subsequently', so we should also not risk their lives for short term gain.
This is written before my first cup of coffee, so forgive its rather rambling nature.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/5/2008 11:21:23 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Perhaps it's the issue of humanitarian aid that rings a bell with the writer, and Time?

I do think this is a good example of how someone can see another's actions are wrong and immoral, but when their own morality is outraged, they adopt the same strategies that they have previously condemned.

Firm


I think it's fair to say you'd like to conclude this thread by agreeing a parallel between Iraq and humanitarian action, and thus claim justification for your stance on Iraq.

There is a genuine difference, of course.

You have openly declared your stance on Iraq is driven by a desire to protect perceived American interests; humanitarian aid transcends national interest by definition.

I do think, however, it's not the US's or the West's place to interfere in the evolution of a nation - even where invited.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/5/2008 11:46:20 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

humanitarian aid transcends national interest by definition.

Oh?  Since when?


_____________________________



(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/5/2008 11:50:06 AM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

humanitarian aid transcends national interest by definition.

Oh?  Since when?



..since most definitions of moral or ethical behaviour suggest that helping people because they are people is better than helping only those people who are the same nationality as yourself.

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/5/2008 12:15:45 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:


..since most definitions of moral or ethical behaviour suggest that helping people because they are people is better than helping only those people who are the same nationality as yourself.

Agreed.  But that's not "national interest".



_____________________________



(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/5/2008 12:17:07 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:


..since most definitions of moral or ethical behaviour suggest that helping people because they are people is better than helping only those people who are the same nationality as yourself.

Agreed.  But that's not "national interest".




....ok, how do you define 'national interest'?

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/5/2008 12:37:12 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:


..since most definitions of moral or ethical behaviour suggest that helping people because they are people is better than helping only those people who are the same nationality as yourself.

Agreed.  But that's not "national interest".




....ok, how do you define 'national interest'?

The proper way

Humanitarian relief is important, but is it responsible to put humanitarian relief ahead of, say, national security?

As a matter of sound foreign policy, offering humanitarian assistance after a natural disaster I can easily believe serves the national interest generally speaking, but I can also believe there are specific circumstances where the specific act of assistance might not be in the national interest.

In the case of Burma, violating Burmese sovereign airspace  would place American military resources and personnel at risk, and potentially tie up vital military resources in an already dangerous part of the globe.  The potential political fallout from alienating third world countries who otherwise might be useful allies is also a possibility, and a steep price to pay for rendering such aid.



_____________________________



(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/5/2008 12:37:33 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Perhaps it's the issue of humanitarian aid that rings a bell with the writer, and Time?

I do think this is a good example of how someone can see another's actions are wrong and immoral, but when their own morality is outraged, they adopt the same strategies that they have previously condemned.

Firm


I think it's fair to say you'd like to conclude this thread by agreeing a parallel between Iraq and humanitarian action, and thus claim justification for your stance on Iraq.

No, that wouldn't be fair to say at all.

I've made my main point already, several times (Well, celtic has made it for me several times.  ty, celtic).

If anyone made the argument that intervention in Iraq was wrong based on the concept of national sovereignty, and then try to make the argument that "someone" should disregard the sovereignty of Burma for humanitarian reasons ... then they have identified themselves as - at best - guilty of unclear thinking, and - at worst - of hypocrisy.

I really don't care to argue the justification of the Iraq war.  Primarily because everyone already has their mind made up.  I'm satisfied to see how it turns out, and explain my position (which you only think you know) if it otherwise comes up in conversation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

There is a genuine difference, of course.

You have openly declared your stance on Iraq is driven by a desire to protect perceived American interests; humanitarian aid transcends national interest by definition.


1. Please link where I've "declared [my] stance on Iraq is driven by a desire to protect perceived American interests".
2. "humanitarian aid transcends national interest by definition" ... I'll let celtic handle that one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

I do think, however, it's not the US's or the West's place to interfere in the evolution of a nation - even where invited.


Interesting concept. You really believe this?

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of... - 6/5/2008 1:03:41 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline 		..interesting link CL, thank you for it and thanks for the clarification. i have to admit though, i was struck by this part of the page, "In early human history the national interest was usually viewed as secondary to that of religion or morality. To engage in a war rulers needed to justify the action in these contexts."
It seems that my thoughts on this matter are now archaic.......although, like manners (a topic you have referred to in the context of how one comports oneself during a national anthem), archaic is not necessarily a bad thing

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Time Magazine endorses "Bush Doctrine" of war! Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094